Traditional oil vs. synthetic.. any opinions?

Display Name and Jayman,
I would like to thank you both ( and others as well) for a most spirited and intelligent discussion complete with useful background information and data. Among quite a few other things I continue to learn in life is that there are not necessarily definitive and absolute answers to everything. I visit many forums but only return to those where the posters are predominantly intelligent, polite and tolerant of other's opinions. Sure we have our hiccups here on PC from time to time but thats to be expected. I place PC at the top of my best forum list because of folks like you.
Thanks
Gary

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Feb 14 2007, 09:21 PM) [snapback]390591[/snapback]</div>

That is why I am rapidly losing my patience with this thread.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jendbbay @ Feb 15 2007, 02:32 PM) [snapback]390975[/snapback]</div>

Oh god ... just what is it with these car "mechanics" who right away throw in some bottle of magic elixir, then suggest you run the thickest oil they can find on the shelf? I'm directing my increasing sarcasm of this thread at your "mechanic," not at you personally in any way. It sounds like you were really taken advantage of.

I do have one simple question: was the car burning that much oil BEFORE the "mechanic" poured in the magic elixir?

Another question: is the motor leaking oil onto the garage floor, or is there visible blue smoke when you first start it, or while driving?

Of course, even if you assume the car did have fairly regular "maintenance" in the past, it could very well be the "mechanics" never even changed the oil, or put used oil from other cars in it. You just never know.

See, that's the problem here. There is absolutely no oversight whatsoever of these creeps, no consequences for them if they turn out to be a ripoff. And nice folks like you get stuck with it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Display Name @ Feb 15 2007, 01:36 AM) [snapback]390708[/snapback]</div>

This will be my last reply to you on this subject.

On the contrary, it is VERY expensive.

To run such a test as you describe – under carefully controlled lab conditions – usually costs in excess of $320,000 PER MOTOR here in Canada. The ACEA has a tightly prescribed test regime for proving in ACEA rated motor oils, using particular motors, and the cost to prove-in one motor oil to the test series runs in excess of 800,000 Euro’s.

As the ACEA receives no direct monetary funds from oil companies, the ACEA members provide the funding assistance. In this case, the actual car makers: MAN/MTU, Citroen/Peugeot, Volkswagon AG, Fiat Group, Renault, Scania, DAF, Ford, BMW Group, etc. The law is different in the EU, there the equipment maker – not the oil company lobbying group – is free to set and demand a certain specification from a motor oil.

So if anybody is curious why it’s so difficult for a motor oil to get certified to the ACEA A3 spec, or especially the ACEA A3-A5/B4-02 spec, it’s because the above mentioned heavy truck and car makers set very high standards. Some here in North America – certainly the API – would claim “impossible†standards. Name one conventional API minimum-spec “Starburst†oil that even meets minimum ACEA spec. Thank you.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Display Name @ Feb 15 2007, 01:36 AM) [snapback]390708[/snapback]</div>

A little over 20 years ago, when I was involved with a petrochemical company trying to determine why they were getting such short life out of their 90 hp tank farm agitator gearboxes, the replacement cost of just the agitator – unit and labor – exceeded $95,000.

As they were only getting a median 3 year time-to-failure – despite changing the 20 gallons of gearbox oil twice a year – that was also getting expensive. So they agreed to a trial, as long as the sponsoring oil company, in this case Imperial Oil Canada, agreed to front the costs.

Long story short: using a synthetic gearbox oil and a desiccant breather filter, with oil changes averaging once every 5 years based on oil analysis reporting, the gearbox was still running 6 years later, at least that was when I last checked up on it.

Never mind the fact that, last time I checked, the gearbox lasted twice as long. The direct savings in labor and used oil recovery over that period amounted to $86,000 PER agitator, and the tank farm had 10 of them. What do you know, just the savings in used oil recovery and maintenance labor, would have automatically PAID for a new agitator.

Note: the sharp-eyed might notice I mentioned “desiccant breather filter.†That was my first recommendation to the client. Yes, the “control†agitator also ran with a desiccant breather filter. This practically stopped dust/moisture contamination, but the conventional lube still broke down. The agitator gearbox calved after 4 years, instead of after 3 years.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Display Name @ Feb 15 2007, 01:36 AM) [snapback]390708[/snapback]</div>

Based on a reply like that, in my opinion it is patently obvious that you do not have the experience – industrial and statistics – you claim to have. After all the CI testing, ANOVA, Weibull, heteroscedasticity, F/T, etc, the data is statistically sound.

The comment “absolute proof of data quality and correlation on a regular basis†sic raised my eyebrows. Hence I had to add the comment “sic.â€

There are a few highly specialized industrial reliability publications, even a *very* highly specialized industrial oil analysis publication, that you must be aware of, given your claimed background. I suggest you peruse those highly specialized publications and draw your own inferences.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Display Name @ Feb 15 2007, 01:36 AM) [snapback]390708[/snapback]</div>

YES! You *finally* understand! My largest criticism of the API (American Petroleum Institute) is that not only is it the lobbying/marketing group for the industry, it is also the promoter of the industry.

Hence, it is in a contradictory position.

On the one hand, the API member companies would like nothing better than to increase sales volume. The best way to do so is something that is very high margin, say an oil change. Especially at one of those quick lube places.

On the other hand, the API has the odd legal right to *determine* oil specifications. When you compare the North American API specs to the ACEA specs, the much poorer quality of the oil here is readily apparent.

The API has – in my opinion – also been responsible for the majority of the disinformation and FUD about the issue of oil changes. Starting with the old myths of “every 3 months or 3,000 miles,†though I guess with garbage oil you have to change it that often.

Hell, you can use Extra Virgin Olive Oil in the crankcase if you change it often enough. But at no point does the used oil stream and custody of that used oil stream enter into the picture.

Certainly not all those used oil filters.

Only fairly recently has used oil recovery and used oil filter recovery entered into the picture. Even at that, it’s far from perfect and anybody who imagines that used oil isn’t “accidentally†sent down a shop sewer drain is deluding themselves.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Display Name @ Feb 15 2007, 01:36 AM) [snapback]390708[/snapback]</div>

Unlikely, but now I have my doubts about that too.

After the incident at my Toyota dealer, I snooped around at other Toyota dealerships. All of them used the bulk oil tote bin, which is industry standard now. All of the breather vents were simple inverted pipes, no evidence of a desiccant breather filter as they are quite obvious to anybody who has experience with them.

I then snooped around other car dealerships, and the quick lube chains. The same inverted pipe, no evidence of a desiccant breather filter system on the tote bin. Do you know what a desiccant breather filter looks like? Would anybody else on this forum, perhaps with the exception of Frank Hudon and Longrun?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Display Name @ Feb 15 2007, 01:36 AM) [snapback]390708[/snapback]</div>

I've already answered that. It is patently absurd to state "there's no other way..."

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Display Name @ Feb 15 2007, 01:36 AM) [snapback]390708[/snapback]</div>

Again, please carefully read my concerns about using a flushing agent. If there really *is* sludge, and the product really is strong enough to send it into solution, then it’s strong enough to attack soft bearing materials and destroy seals. That was my experience with industrial machine flushes, which is why they’re a rare event.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Display Name @ Feb 15 2007, 01:36 AM) [snapback]390708[/snapback]</div>

So what does that mean? That a magic product exists that is strong enough to readily dissolve sludge, but is safe for all bearings and seals? Kerosene will also do that, about a 10% mix, and only for very light levels of deposits.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Display Name @ Feb 15 2007, 01:36 AM) [snapback]390708[/snapback]</div>

There are many magic elixirs on sale at a place like Wally World that promise all sort of wonderful things for your motor. Without exception, the EPA has debunked all them after carefully controlled laboratory testing. So they make slight changes to the advertising wording to avoid costly lawsuits, and still sell it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Display Name @ Feb 15 2007, 01:36 AM) [snapback]390708[/snapback]</div>

Ah, interesting. Explains a lot too.

I have found that mechanics are one of the greatest single sources of misinformation and FUD about motor oils. As a simple “reliability test†ask the average mechanic the following question:

“Is a 10W-30 motor oil better than a 5W-30?†Or ask “Is a 10W-30 motor oil thicker than a 5W-30 motor oil?â€

You’d be surprised at some of the bulls*** that gushes from their mouth.

“Oh a 10W-30 is twice as good at protecting your motor as a 5W-30 … a 10W-40 is six times thicker than a 5W-30 … the W means the oil is tested in Winter …â€

I mean, seriously now: you could be upwind of their s***house and you’d STILL smell it

Hint: running the Industry Standard ASTM Kinematic series at 100 C, the only way a 0W-30, 5W-30, 10W-30, or 30 can be labeled as such, is if they test out 9.3-12.5 centiStokes. If they test higher than 12.5 centiStokes, or less than 9.3 centiStokes, they are no longer allowed to label 30.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Display Name @ Feb 15 2007, 01:36 AM) [snapback]390708[/snapback]</div>

Yes who knows. I remember when I was forced to take all four Statistics classes in college, way back then. The prof started us out on each topic with a humorous tale, to emphasize how silly the Status Quo could be, and how our assumptions were usually dead wrong.

As an example: when we started on reliability testing, autocorrelation, etc. He used the story of a pedestrian walking down the street, constantly snapping his fingers. Finally one day, a storekeeper noticed this pedestrian confidently marching down the street, snapping his fingers, and the storekeeper stopped the pedestrian.

Storekeeper: “Why are you snapping your fingers all the time like that when you walk down the street?â€

Pedestrian: “Why, it keeps me safe from a herd of stampeding elephants.â€

Storekeeper: “What? You’re crazy! There are no elephants around here!â€

Pedestrian: “See, it works ….â€

Or getting back to your tale of the cylinder heads. Suppose the majority of them come from red cars. We can determine that to be a fact. Can we infer that the color red somehow causes cylinder heads to go bad? Of course not.

In other words, although hard “data†may be collected, that data may fail the routine statistical analysis as it really is nothing more than “noise.â€

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Display Name @ Feb 15 2007, 01:36 AM) [snapback]390708[/snapback]</div>

There is strong statistical correlation between used oil analysis, machine tear-down analysis, DMECA/FMECA … this is turning into a pointless circular argument.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Display Name @ Feb 15 2007, 01:36 AM) [snapback]390708[/snapback]</div>

It does appear your mind is already closed and made up. Hence, this will be my last post to this thread. Stick a fork in it, it’s done already.

 

Jayman, You ask:

I do have one simple question: was the car burning that much oil BEFORE the "mechanic" poured in the magic elixir?

My answer: I don't know for sure. To my amazement, the mobil mechanic claimed it was nearly out of oil and the oil that was there was horrible. But, I am not absolutely sure of his voracity. To put that another way, I ultimately learned that he lied about a different issue altogether, and he managed to take off with a couple hundred dollars and to never return to do the work. So if you believe him, it was low. too low to be consistent with the repair/oil change record.

Jayman, next you ask

Another question: is the motor leaking oil onto the garage floor, or is there visible blue smoke when you first start it, or while driving?

My answer:

No it is not leaking and there is no visible blue smoke when we first start it.

Jayman, you comment:

Of course, even if you assume the car did have fairly regular "maintenance" in the past, it could very well be the "mechanics" never even changed the oil, or put used oil from other cars in it. You just never know.

See, that's the problem here. There is absolutely no oversight whatsoever of these creeps, no consequences for them if they turn out to be a ripoff. And nice folks like you get stuck with it.
[/quote]

All I can say in response to that is "you said it"

So now, my questions are:

what is wrong with 20/50 weight oil in this situation? Can I jus tgo back to using the recommended 5w20 oil? What do I do?

What about extended synthetic in the Prius? Is that okay? Can I go back to normal Synthetic if some day I need oil and there is no Extended?